Well, he was on the hard tyres. I suspect he came under pressure from Vettel, over-cooked it and ran wide at Farm, picking up a slow puncture for his efforts. Ferrari may have pitted to try and get fresh rubber and pass him so that they weren’t totally emarrassed by their race.

That is something his team should have told Alonso immediately after the incident. The FIA stewards have to do an investigation after they failed to do the right thing.

Had Alonso served the penalty immediately, he would have been back before the SC and had the same chance to get back to the front as Vettel had. Now he did it after, it lost him every chance to fight for good points. Ferrari are at foult as well for not instructing him on time.
Or do you thing the SC should not have come out with carbon parts on the main straight?

Sorry, rob, but Alonso could have avoided the penalty altogether if he’d bothered to give the place back to Kubica straight away. Instead, he decided to keep racing to see what happens. Well, he was playing Russian roulette and got the penalty equivalent of a bullet to the brainpan.

And before you jump at the stewards for the delay, bear in mind that they can only act when someone reports and infringement. If it took Kubica and Renault a few laps to report it, the stewards’ hands are tied. By the looks of things, Kubica picked up a differential problem and Renault were more concerned about it than the Alonso incident at the time. That the safety car came out just as Alonso was served a penalty was just bad luck for Alonso, who got exactly what he deserved for not yielding.

The stewards cannot act unless someone reports it. I’m willing to bet that Kubica was in the same position as Petrov was in Malaysia: he had the problem for a few laps before he retired. In that case, the problem would have been Renault’s first priority, and they would have dealt with it before focusing on Alonso.

He didn’t just gain an advantage over Kubica with his illegal move. He was released and able to do faster laptimes because of it, which helped him gain through the pitstops (helping him stay ahead of Button).

If he had yielded immediately and tried again he wouldn’t have been in this situation.

The way I see Kubica had the preference on the previous curve and his trajectory for the next very close corner could not be changed (most probably he started braking in the very last millisecond). Alonso was, therefore, pushed out of the track by him. Who commited a fault here? In my oppinion no one, just pure nice racing. Alonso came back to the track in such way (almost crossing the track) that induced a speed reduction in KubicaÂ´s pace, otherwise Kubica could passed him back. For me itÂ´s clear, Alonso should return the position back to Kubica and try again next lap.

We do over at F1 Rejects. We call it the Infinite Improbablity Drive of the race, and it’s named for the driver who is absolutely everywhere despite the fact that, by rights, he probably shouldn’t be. It’s named after the starship in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which allowed the ship to be everywhere in the galaxy all at once.

And now that Charlie Whiting has come out to say that Ferrari were told 3 times to give back the position, starting immediately after the incident? Do you still think the stewards were ‘incompetent’? Or do you admit now that it was the Scuderia Ferrari who were the stupid ones?

@prisoner monkey. Why should he have yielded back a place?he wasnt asked to.. Do you even remember what happened in suzuka 2005??. I have never heard someone being served a drive through for cutting a chicane and overtaking. And dont tell me its hamilton because he was penalised for not properly giving back the place. And going by the leniency of the stewards it was clearly harsh if not biased.

I have never heard someone being served a drive through for cutting a chicane and overtaking.

Do you listen to the commentary? Haven’t you noticed how Martin Brundle is always talking about how cutting a chicane and not losing a place because of it is the same as cutting a chicane and gaining a place? Because that’s what we’re talking about.

And dont tell me its hamilton because he was penalised for not properly giving back the place.

And that’s exactly what we’re talking about here: Alonso left the circuit, cut across the first section of Club corner and gained a place out of it. So how is that not worthy of a penalty?

I don’t understand why this is even a discussion. ALO cut the corner and passed KUB, that’s an illegal move according to the rules of F1, and usually the offending driver gives the position back. ALO didn’t, Ferrari played ‘wait and see’, and Charlie laid down the usual drive-through penalty. And Ferrari know this, which is why they are readily saying “we accept the penalty, they should all be done this way… bla bla”

Your comments are also a bit misleading about the Spa incident. HAM was penalised for cutting the chicane, he did give the place back and VMM were prepared to argue this using telemetry data, but the FIA deemed the appeal inadmissible. And the penalty for that cutting the chicane was? A drive-through penalty, which because of it being applied post-race meant an additional 25 seconds being added to HAM’s time. There is your precedent.

Because I think people are trying to make a case for the stewards being idiots. It’s a shame, really – they’ve stayed out of it for the most part this year unless there’s been a) a clear violation of the rules, or b) the situation is uncertain and demands judgement. For the msot part, they’ve let good racing take centre stage.

I completely agree. Everybody is saying (particularly the drivers) that they are letting them ‘race’… it doesn’t surprise me that the drivers who are most often in the stewards’ rooms are the ones we like to say are real ‘racers’…

@Pmonkey Hamilton was orderded to give back the place which afterwards the stewards felt he didnt.They didnt penalise him after he overtook kimi illegally. They asked him to give back the place . But alonso wasn’t because kubica wasnt there any more. And if they desperately wanted to penalise him then why not slap him a 5 sec penalty. And whatever brundle say doesnt justify alonso’s ridiculous penalty because he didnt gain around 20 secs advantage through that move so that he could be served a drive through.

But alonso wasnâ€™t because kubica wasnt there any more
By passing Kubica, Alonso entered into free air, which allowed him to set faster lap times and benefit in the pit stops. Even if Kubica had retired, it was justified. Alonso went off the track, and in doing so, gained a place which he did not give back. That’s grounds for a penalty, and the standard penalty for leaving the circuit and gaining a position from it (without giving the place back) is and always has been a drive-through. Alonso was not penalised because he left the circuit – he was penalised because he did not give back the position.

I think he was trying to justify it. Alonso knew that the incident would be seen on-camera and guessed that the BBC would pick up his first radio transmission afterwards, even if it was Ferrari talking to him. He instanly said something defensive about Kubica forcing him to run wide to justify it.

Rightly said Dev, I’m not sure how the FIA could have decided and them told HAM to give the place back within the 300m or so between the final chicane and the start/finish line at Spa, as Johnny86 is suggesting. In fact, at the time VMM had called Race control and asked them if they were satisfied with HAM giving back the position, to which Charlie had responded ‘yes’. Then of course the argument came that Charlie is not the chief steward etc…